In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was inevitable in the UK . He denied it was an alien system and called for constructive accommodation of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more extreme punishments.

It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the widespread misunderstanding of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing justice in a form totally alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens  particularly women.

The constructive accommodation of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol. A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who insults Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.

The police stand passively by, adhering to their diversity training.

If the Labour Party had won the last general election in 2010, I believe they would have introduced Sharia law into the United Kingdom. Things have changed for the better since David Cameron became prime minister  he has criticized state multiculturalism as causative of terrorism and radicalism. An inquiry of the Ministry of Justice into the operation of Sharia courts had to be stopped as Muslim leaders refused to cooperate with the government; they wanted to continue to execute Sharia law in secrecy. However, this has only heightened concerns. A Conservative peer has sought to introduce legislation delimiting the operation of Sharia courts as discriminatory against women. The home secretary has at last refused entry visas to hate preachers like Zakir Naik. (The last Labour government welcomed Hezbollah terrorists to lecture the police on political Islam.)

When I was a boy growing up in London, as Roger Kimball has written, terms like Sharia and jihad were anthropological phrases analogous to witch burning, using leeches to draw blood, and cannibalism. It would have been beyond my comprehension that our political elite would seek to introduce this medieval system into one of the most advanced societies in the world.

Sharia law is the antithesis of law as representative of rational human endeavor to alleviate the human condition.

In this short piece, it is not possible to fully illuminate the establishment of Islam in the United Kingdom (as described by the First Amendment). I can only give examples.

An interesting case of mine involved a church in a part of the country declared a Sharia law controlled zone. The church had existed for about 150 years, but it was served with a noise pollution notice for the singing of hymns on a Sunday morning at 10:30 a.m. As the notice was served, the council officer said: This is a Muslim area. (Naturally, this statement was denied in court.)

However, it was the court experience which was most disturbing; the local court was in an area with a high Muslim population, and the majority of the judges hearing the case were Muslim. The court closed the church. I thought the only image missing from the scene was about 200 mullahs demonstrating outside the court for the death of the infidels.

The case was appealed, and moved to a district that was predominantly English (where the appeal court was situated). The court opened the church.

This case was similar to a case where Muslim police officers prevented two street preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, from evangelizing in Birmingham. The Muslim police office called it a hate crime to seek to convert Muslim youths. A Muslim police office failed to uphold British values: social cohesion requires that the appointment of Muslim judges and police officers is in accordance with British standards and values.

In 2005, the BBC broadcast Jerry Springer  The Opera. It conformed to the usual high standards of the BBC: Jesus in a nappy; Jesus a little bit gay; the fondling of Jesuss genitals. Fifty-five thousand complaints were received, and ignored  the BBC governors declared the program artistically exceptional. There was legal action against the BBC, but they bravely defended themselves  using taxpayers money  by asserting their willingness to challenge sensitivities. No apology was given.

How brave. Yet their courage seems to fail with Islam, and there has yet to be such an artistically exceptional program on Mohammed (nor will there ever be).

This must be juxtaposed with a BBC program titled Question Time, a flagship political discussion program in which free speech is vital to open debate. Mr. Charles Moore, a former editor of the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator magazine, openly criticized the Muslim Council of Britain for not condemning the killing and kidnapping of British troops overseas and suggested they thought it was a good thing. The BBC offered a £30,000 payment from taxpayers money, along with an apology. No attempt was made to defend free speech.

If this decision by the BBC had been challenged as inconsistent with their position to the Christian community, it would have been dismissed by the court (with costs to pay).

In 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underwear bomber) appeared on the world scene. He is the fourth British Muslim student leader in three years to be implicated in terrorist activity. He was a devout Nigerian student, clearly radicalized during his time at London University  many of our universities have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalism, where Jewish students keep a low profile. Of course, London University commissioned a report and denied that Umar was radicalized while in their educational care, and they defended the right of free speech. Undaunted, Islamic hate preachers continue to appear regularly at London University.

U.S. readers can rest assured that the university authorities and student unions are taking decisive measures against dangerous and radical religious groups. I was recently contacted by the Exeter University Christian Union after they were expelled from the student union for having a discriminatory membership policy. The policy? Requiring members to be Christians! I ought to say that at the time, my U.S. colleagues assured me that no Christian society at any U.S. university would ever suffer such a silly fate because of the First Amendment.

Poor Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang entered a religious discussion with a Muslim guest at their bed and breakfast hotel in Liverpool. Foolishly in a private conversation, they described Mohammed as a warlord. They were prosecuted by the police.

The evidence was so bad that the judge effectively threw the case out (and it is instructive to note that a Muslim guest gave evidence on behalf of the couple), but this was not before a year of awaiting trial and the devastation of their business. Their bed and breakfast had been used by the local hospital, which now refused to use such an Islamophobic hostel. The state used its economic powers to ensure that British citizens private religious views conform to state policy.

Simultaneously, the British police act in the vanguard of the Islamification of Britain by selectively terrorizing the British population to use only the free speech rights of which they approve. In 2007, Channel 4 produced a documentary titled Undercover Mosque which showed video of imams saying things like: You have to bomb the Indian businesses and, as for the Jews, you kill them physically, among a whole range of other religious speech advocating violent jihad. A clear case of a hate crime, no?

The Crown Prosecution Service said no charges should be brought, and the police announced they would consider prosecuting Channel 4 for showing the documentary.

You can imagine what the average British citizen thinks. The Islamists can say what they want; anyone who criticizes this or shows it will be prosecuted by the police. Of course, Channel 4 is big enough and wealthy enough to defend itself  they sued the police for libel. The police capitulated and paid £100,000 to Channel 4, and accepted without reservation that the documentary was accurate and dealt with the subject matter responsibly.

The question remains: why have the imams not been arrested? And why have the police officers themselves not been arrested for interfering with the administration of justice?

Many British employers permit the hijab, but not a cross, and so on and so forth. I could continue, but I am sure you get the picture. Islam is becoming the established religion. However, while the Islamists welcome it, the causative reason is a liberal elite who are fellow travelers with a primitive juristic system. The Labour Party and Democratic Party are sympathetic to religious practice that discriminates against women, homosexuals, and Jews  everything they purport to be against.

While John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown et al. stood by, wringing their little schoolboy hands in desperation? Get real. Did you even read the article? When was the last time muzzies got a church shut down in Poland, Austria, Germany, Italy,...? I’m *not* saying the UK was *alone* in making EU rules and regulations, but it was very much complicit and instrumental to bring about the status quo. In spades, as regards its own nation.

Look no further than the UK “open borders” policy which goes way beyond that of other EU countries and is much to blame for their current woes (in the specific regard of the article topic). E.g., when the eastern European countries joined the EU a few years back, the UK Labour regime opened their borders to all comers without any restraint (unlike the other western EU countries) and claimed that only a few thousand would come. Gee, looks like it was a few millions, many of them criminals and welfare-suckers. Looks like your feet are wet and you’re looking at pyramids - you are in denial.

Blaming someone else for one’s own failure - where have we heard *that* before? (Psst - Detroit, Philidelphia, ... any inner city in the US you might come up with would be a good starting point.)

> What should be done: [picture with EXTERMINATE on it]<
> I guess you’ve never been shot at by Muslims. My opinion stands.<

I’ve been in the military myself, and my father was killed in combat. That wasn’t enough to make me support exterminating an entire people — men, women, and children. As long as I retain my sanity, nothing will make me do that. (If yours has been adversely affected by war, I’m sorry. That’s not a putdown. I mean it. I’m still going to oppose you, though.)

The American and British people, of course, won’t support any such thing. Remarks like yours serve as an outlet for frustration (and occasionally some of the less outrageous jokes please me too). They provide aid to the enemy, though, by giving them propaganda material that can be used to smear more legitimate opposition. Your thoughtless bravado — and I think that’s more likely what we have here than lack of sanity — hurts the anti-Islamist cause.

[Sorry for the length of my posts. I lack the ability to answer difficult questions in just a few words.]

> You have to make a choice. Are you let them hide behind the very freedoms they seek to deny you? At the very least, you need force them between between leaving or converting.<

Giving in to them or exterminating them are not the only choices (that was the point of my earlier post). I agree that it was a mistake for the UK to accept as citizens large numbers of immigrants who support sharia law. Now that they’re there, though, British “freedoms” don’t give them the authority to impose that law. That in itself is a violation of British freedom.

To the degree that immigrants support that they should be opposed by whatever means are needed to resist the threat. If I were British, and it came to a choice between accepting sharia law and fighting a civil war, I’d choose war (even then I’d strive to avoid harming non-combatants as much as possible). That stage has not been reached yet, though, and let’s hope it never comes.

Because many on the European left have become apologists for the Islamists I’m not very optimistic. Eventually, though, I expect most will see that Islamists are a real threat to freedoms that they too enjoy. (The murders of film producers and that sort of thing may in time get through to them.) I hope it will be before those countries suffer worse consequences than they have already.

Islamist fanaticism is strong now, but Islam has been around for a long time without succeeding in imposing its laws on the entire world. There’s much in modern civilization that serves to oppose it (also numbers alone in the Americas, China, Japan, and many other countries mean that they aren’t likely to turn Muslim in the foreseeable future).

I’m more concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism from a relatively small number of fanatic Islamists. In the long run — if there is a long run — I don’t think radical Islamists will win out despite the inroads they’re making in Europe, and the growth of their population. I’m sure that many Muslims too would prefer to live relatively normal lives and to be free. It takes courage, though, to openly defy Islamists when you live among them. Only when very large numbers act at one time is doing so an acceptable risk for most persons.

Half a millennium ago European Christians were split into Catholics and Protestants, and killing each other in great numbers. They too had oppressive laws, and killed heretics and suspected “witches” by the thousands. (All peoples are inclined at times to act like savages.) Gradually that changed. It can happen to Muslims too. There have been periods in Muslim history when there were regimes that were relatively tolerant (at least in the context of an intolerant time). I’m hoping it won’t take another five hundred years for this radical surge to subside. I’m old and can’t wait that long. :-)

I could care less what Muslims think, as you so obviously do. You have no moral authority over me, claiming that I am insane or thoughtless. You are more concerned about what the irredeemable enemy thinks; that makes you an appeaser.

This conversation is over. Do not reply or I will alert the moderators to your continued harassment.

>You are more concerned about what the irredeemable enemy thinks; that makes you an appeaser.<

That’s not true. What I did is point out that your saying that you support exterminating a people weakens the anti-Islamist cause. I didn’t specify among Muslims (though that’s true), and certainly didn’t say among “the irredeemable enemy” (whom I favor opposing — if necessary, fighting to the death rather than submitting). I had in mind that statements like yours serve to weaken the anti-Islamist cause among non-Muslim Europeans, who need to be convinced that Islamists and not their enemies pose the greater threat to freedom.

>Do not reply or I will alert the moderators to your continued harassment.<

Nobody calls me an “appeaser” (an especially absurd charge after I started my first post with “I’m disgusted too by what that article said about the UK trying to appease the Islamists.”) and succeeds in intimidating me into silence. Unlike appeasers I don’t intimidate that easily.

As for what I said about you, one statement was hypothetical and intended to give you an excuse for making your outrageous statement about “exterminate” — “If yours [your sanity] has been adversely affected by war, I’m sorry.” (Unfortunately that does happen to some persons.) People often flatly state, though, that someone else is “crazy” — something I didn’t do — without it being considered a harsh insult. When I’m called that, it’s like water off a duck’s back. :-)

My other statement is also surprisingly mild, considering the context. “Your thoughtless bravado  and I think that’s more likely what we have here than lack of sanity  hurts the anti-Islamist cause.” Neither statement in my opinion is as offensive as your calling me an “appeaser” of the enemy.

I’m a big boy, though, and can defend myself. I won’t tattle. If you feel to seek the help of the moderators, that’s up to you. Perhaps you’re in better with them than I am. I don’t know. Still, I don’t believe they’ll read this thread and find my relatively mild statements more offensive than what you wrote (”What should be done: [picture with EXTERMINATE on it]”).

Actually I was protecting the reputation of this site by showing that we don’t advocate genocide (if a significant number of the readers here really do advocate genocide — and don’t just occasionally use outrageous rhetoric to let off steam — then I don’t want to be associated with it, and will willingly leave). I gave you yourself every opportunity I could to explain away what you said earlier. I’m not asking that you be forbidden from making such statements, but I do believe others should be free to respond (and not have to treat advocates of genocide with kid gloves).

Sorry that our disagreement has become somewhat personal. Ordinarily I’d be inclined to treat someone with the name “Old Sarge” with great deference (and even now I still have hopes that you’re just letting off steam, and haven’t really thought through the consequences of what you’ve proposed).

Your choice is unethical. By choosing to accept civil war instead of eliminating the enemy and his support structure, you are choosing to punish the peaceful and the law abiding rather than the enemy.
It is far better, and more ethical, to convert, expel, or kill the heathen than it is to let them bring war to your home.

31
posted on 12/13/2011 6:34:50 AM PST
by Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)

Problem is, the will of Western peoples has never been so weak. You don’t need power to conquer an empire that is rotting from within, just patience and persistence. Christians proved that with Rome and they were a lot less belligerent.

The is not going to be a “Muslim Reformation.” The Koran was dictated by “God” to Mohamed (piss be upon him) and they can’t change a word in it. They can’t really even argue over the interpretation. In case you haven’t noticed, their only real division (Shi’ite vs. Sunni) seems to be about the succession of the Caliphate after Mohamed.

32
posted on 12/13/2011 6:46:13 AM PST
by Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)

> It is far better, and more ethical, to convert, expel, or kill the heathen than it is to let them bring war to your home.

“Bring”? The topic of this thread is the Muslims already in the UK. I agree about taking the war to your enemies. If “heathen” includes all persons who aren’t practicing Christians, though, I suspect that would include more than half the non-Muslim British (and despite nominal affiliation more than half the Americans — a very large percentage, anyway).

I oppose using force to compel anyone to convert to a religion. Christians too may recall that preaching rather than force was the New Testament way of acquiring converts. Those who try to kill the “heathen” of either the UK or the United States — simply because they are heathen — will rightly be regarded as enemies of modern civilization, fanatical extremists who represent only a small percentage of the population.

If Muslims choose to become Christians, though, or to reduce the extremity of their Islamic beliefs to such a degree that they can integrate into European society, that’s certainly preferable to civil war. Neither am I opposed to expelling immigrants who demonstrate that they won’t accept the standards of tolerance of a free society (and that includes intolerant Christians :-).

I’d support civil war only as a last resort, if the alternative were submission to sharia law. Likewise I’d favor fighting against a non-Muslim government that tries to exterminate an entire people. I oppose fanatics who wish to take away our freedom, whatever the religion (or whatever the non-religious ideology).

> The[re] is not going to be a Muslim Reformation. The Koran was dictated by God to Mohamed (piss be upon him) and they cant change a word in it.<

They can ignore many things that are in it, though, just as most Christians do with the Bible. Many Muslims have done that in many places and many times. Even now I don’t believe most nominally Muslim countries fully enforce sharia law.

Also just as with Christianity, there are different interpretations. For instance, there’s disagreement about whether the Koran requires that Muslims who convert to another religion be killed. Also sometimes one part of the Koran seems to imply one thing, and another part something contradictory. Then too, just as with Christians and the Bible, many Muslims simply don’t know what’s in it.

I’m a bit pessimistic in the short run too, and distrust the so-called “Arab Spring” (though I hope I’m wrong). How many religions, though, endure without weakening and changing over time? None that I know of, and that includes Islam — despite the recent surge in fanaticism in some places (it’s a surge because it was weaker previously — I think it will become weaker still in time).

Have it your way. You have basically said that you’ll let them stay there, establish support, and only fight when, at the time of their own choosing, they attempt to force unacceptable change upon you. You’re not going to win if you start only fighting at the time they choose for you.

My stance is, that change should be forced upon them, now, and, if they don’t accept it, they be asked to leave; if they refuse, then they need to be expelled or destroyed.

As a Christian, I’m not particularly happy with the idea of forced conversion, either. But it is a useful tool. If they convert, they’re anathema to the rest of Islam - subject to being killed by any “good” Muslim. I don’t care what they covert to, thought, naturally, Christianity would be best for them.

In any case, I’m politically and culturally intolerant, not racially or religiously.

36
posted on 12/13/2011 8:53:04 AM PST
by Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)

The isn't any controversy about conversion from Islam. They have rules for interpreting the “conflicting” statements. Parts that come later in the Koran supersede those earlier in the book. There is, to my limited knowledge, nothing that supersedes the injunction to kill those who convert from Islam. Also, the "Arab Spring" is looking more and more like an Al Qaeda resurgence. This was actually Al Qaeda's strategic goal when they attacked us all those years ago. It took a while, but the "ummah" are overthrowing the (relatively) secular states in the ME. Can't wait to see if this makes it into Saudi Arabia (couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people...).

37
posted on 12/13/2011 9:01:34 AM PST
by Little Ray
(FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)

> You’re not going to win if you start only fighting at the time they choose for you.<

I agree they should be weakened before they reach the stage of having a good chance of prevailing in a civil war — for instance, by opposing attempts to implement sharia law and expelling immigrants who preach violent jihad and refuse to integrate into Western society. Also, of course — as we do on this forum — we should try to win the ideological war by swaying public opinion against them.

> There is, to my limited knowledge, nothing that supersedes the injunction to kill those who convert from Islam.<

I don’t recall exactly what was said either, but within the last couple months there was a discussion of the relevant passages (either on this forum or another). It’s my vague impression that they were unclear, and there were contradictory additions (maybe in the Hadith). I’ve already written too many voluminous posts today, though, and I’m reluctant to get into that now. If I can look it up easily, I’ll do it later in the day, and post what I find. (Searching for “conversion from Islam” [or similar terms] and “death” will probably turn up pages to check, and some will probably give detailed accounts of Islamic passages.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.